Bush. At a time when we're supposed to be united, more and more people are becoming divided because of his choices and losing faith in him...and when you lose your faith in your country and those who are supposed to be taking care of us and leading us, it's making us lose sight about what America is REALLY supposed to be about and the ethics is was built upon. Bush isn't someone I would look up to or follow anywhere, and I wouldn't trust him with my life or my family's life..literally. That says a lot. I'm not saying he's a bad person, just a bad president. As for Clinton, he's a saint compared to Bush, I mean, at least nobody died during his cigar incident with Monica...I'm really not interested in ANY president's sexual behaviors, and if that's the WORST thing that Clinton did in the White House, it's better than anything Bush has put this country through in the past couple years. What seemed like such a big deal with Clinton's "incident" back then seems so petty now.
Just because we're American's doesn't mean we have to agree with the way our leaders handle things, and that doesn't make us "pathetic". I think those who agree with the war so much should enlist themselves and head into Iraq because I know about 20 other people who would LOVE you to take their place so they could come home...including my fiance and a lot of other people he's enlisted with who think ending this is WAY more than overdue. Not just the people here are losing faith but so many men and woman in the war. I trust the military overseas and their judgement in all of this more than anyone because they are there, seeing it all first hand, and when they say it's time to come home and this is not something they believe in anymore, that's go to tell you something. But like I said, if you do believe in it, there's a lot of people who would love for you to take their place.
2006-06-14 16:32:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by ac 3
·
4⤊
2⤋
What can I say,a non american.In my humble opinion, the best two presidents in my lifetime were jfk and reagan At the time of the cuban missile crisis kennedy's actions were decisive and just and won worldwide acclaim.Reagan was also firm and decisive over the iran hostage situation.Again I don't profess to know or to understand the internal political situation in the usa But these two actions brought respect and honor to your country I think As for the worst. The current presidency is the worst by a long way Never before have I known such animosity towards the usa and most of this from her allies
2006-06-14 17:34:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You really can't say George W. is the worst beyond all doubt because the faults of his precidency (numerous though they may be) are fresh in our minds. For instance, someone commented on us not needing to be in Iraq. Well, we didn't need to be in Vietnam either and that war was far worse. And none of us were alive for many of our Presidents and there was no media to broadcast every mistake they made for history to record. It's actually a pretty difficult question to answer in a way that would satisfy most people.
And to the person above me- there is more to being President than the economy. Clinton was a terribly flawed President in a lot of ways...just not necessarily in ways an American voter cares about. He let near one million innocent people get slaughtered in Rwanda while hearing updates on the situation every day. And afterward, he suffered no repurcussions because of some BS speech about not being "fully aware" of what was going on. Of course, Bush has been just as bad about the situation in Darfur.
2006-06-14 16:29:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Guy Inginito 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
With the current state of our country and the animosity the rest of the world holds us in can there be any doubt to who is the worst president of all time? George W. Bush is by far the most damaging influence this country has ever had to overcome. His taint will be felt for years and the rest of the world may never fully trust us again.
2006-06-14 17:08:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by adaminvestigates 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
you're taking under consideration Jimmy Carter as all time worst chief. impressive guy that does sturdy issues yet a poor president. Bush is doing ok thinking optimum a us of a by skill of 9/11 and the aftermath with liberals putting him down each and each of the time.
2016-10-30 22:19:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
That would be a toss up between Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, of course '08 is coming and I hear Hillary might be trying to run, if she makes it, I think she could possible supersede her useless husband, because even though she was acting president during her husbands term, he did at least limit some of her abilities to really mess things up.
2006-06-14 16:28:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by asmul8ed 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lol - how dumb would you have to be to say Clinton? Yeah, that peace and prosperity was AWFUL. I hope we never go back to the good old days....
To answer your question. Bush (the son). At least the dad had the balls to raise taxes when the deficit spiraled out of control. And then Clinton raised taxes...and then the economy EXPLODED. Funny, isn't. That's the exact opposite of what the right-wing said would happen....Funny, too, how their tax cuts have led to FALLING wages for working Americans. It's almost as if the policies they keep pushing are complete and utter nonsense......
2006-06-14 16:29:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by lamoviemaven 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would say Bush because he is the most recent on memory..I don't really remember my history that much at least not when it comes to the presidents
2006-06-14 16:24:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by conundrum_dragon 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jimmy Carter was the most do-nothing President we've
ever had. Even now he wants to footy-foot with a living
dictator Castro in Cuba. He needs to stick to building
"habitat for humanities".
2006-06-14 16:29:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Harry Truman for dropping the A bomb. That was just sick and inhumane. I currently don't like Bush but he was the worst. There is nothing anybody can do that warrants that kind of sickening cruelty.
2006-06-14 17:01:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋